Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that results include computed progress and a recommended next task, but says nothing about scoping (all tasks vs. filtered), ordering, or result size.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the payload contents. The 'Mission control for your blueprint' framing is mildly decorative but costs little and reads quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does a reasonable job of previewing return content (status, progress, next task). However, for a tool in a dense blueprint_* family it leaves the agent without usage context, filtering behavior, or how the result relates to blueprint_update_task.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (instance_id, passport_token) are documented in the schema with format constraints and auth guidance. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns no extra credit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (every task in your blueprint) and enumerates what comes back: status, progress, and the next task to work on. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like blueprint_method, roadmap, or blueprint_update_task, so an agent must infer that this is the read-only listing counterpart to blueprint_update_task.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives among the many blueprint_* siblings. The phrase 'next task to work on' hints at a workflow but never states the trigger for calling this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.